![\"\"](\"http:\/\/irishexaminerusa.com\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/10\/2.47765879.jpg\")
Arlene Foster has claimed there is no public appetite for fundamental reform of Stormont power-sharing structures that would see changes to the parallel consent model.<\/p>\nArlene Foster has claimed there is no public appetite for fundamental reform of Stormont power-sharing structures that would see changes to the parallel consent model.<\/p>\n
The Assembly mechanism that requires the support of a majority of unionists and a majority of nationalists before changes can be agreed has recently become a source of dispute in the Brexit impasse.<\/p>\n
The DUP has insisted Stormont consent for post-Brexit arrangements must be on the basis of parallel consent, not the straight majority envisaged in the latest Withdrawal Deal.<\/p>\n
Ms Foster had previously voiced a desire to get rid of the petition of concern mechanism, if other parties agreed to the change.<\/p>\n
At her party conference in Belfast, she told PA Media that it was now not the time for such a move. But she denied her stance was related to Brexit.<\/p>\n
Ms Foster instead argued that removing the mechanism could only come as part of a wider restructuring of the architecture of power-sharing.<\/p>\n
She insisted the public would rather just see the Assembly restored as soon as possible, after almost three years in cold storage, rather than \u201cnavel gazing\u201d and embarking on a lengthy re-negotiation of the devolved system of governance.<\/p>\n
Asked if she still wanted to scrap the petition of concern, Ms Foster said: \u201cI think what we\u2019re doing now is in the context of where we are at this present moment in time \u2013 we have no Assembly at the moment, we need to have that Assembly back up and running, we need to have a pathway to get that Assembly back up and running again.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you try to change a whole remit of the architecture of power-sharing, then where are you going to stop in relation to all of this?<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you\u2019re going to pick and choose the bits that you\u2019re going to actually change in relation to power-sharing, that\u2019s not going to work, you\u2019re going to have to have a complete renegotiation of what happened 21 years ago (Good Friday Agreement).<\/p>\n
\u201cFrankly, I don\u2019t think that\u2019s what people want.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey want to see us actually back in the Assembly, delivering for them in terms of hospitals, education, roads, schools, all of the things that they want to see us deliver on.<\/p>\n
\u201cSo instead of actually navel gazing on things like that, they have a very basic understanding that to move forward a) there has to be power-sharing, and, b) it has to be something unionism and nationalism can subscribe to.\u201d<\/p>\n
The DUP leader questioned political rivals who claimed the \u201coriginal intention\u201d of the petition of concern had become skewed.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you look back at the Belfast Agreement, the petition of concern is there, it is not prescribed as to how it should be used.<\/p>\n
\u201cI mean, some people like to say, \u2018oh, let\u2019s get back to the original intention of the petition of concern\u2019. But if you look at the Belfast agreement, there\u2019s actually no original intention.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was just there to protect minorities; it was there so that people would move forward in a way that you would have the majority of unionists and the majority of nationals.<\/p>\n
\u201cOthers want to use it for a very more specific issues.\u201d<\/p>\n